Tweet
I recently started receiving letter from lowell for a barclaycard i had 7 years ago, never made a payment on it as i moved abroad, i sent a letter as i thought it should now be 'statue barred', i received a response today saying that 2 payments 1 on the 12th and 1 on the 15th july 2010 both for £20, i have never made these payments and have requested a copy of statement, I was also advised the payments were returned as they were made in error, therefore proving i have made no payment, can anyone help regarding this please? What do i do?
Loading...
-
Tags: None -
Re: lowell
Lowell aka the Leeds Losers are well known for making imaginary payments. They tried it on with me but the idiots claimed I made a payment in a bank nowhere near me when I wasn't even in the country. Better still I made it on a Sunday.
The onus is not on you to prove you didn't make the payment but the burden of proof lies with them to PROVE that YOU made the alleged payment.
``````````so don't worry about them. It's par for the course. They probably wouldn't even have the paperwork anyway. They are absolute Shysters and well known for their tactics -
Re: lowell
Thanks, i don't really care about them, i was just ignoring them until i got a letter from their legal dept, stating they were applying for a ccj, to which i responded with the limitation act 1980 section 5 'statue barred' legal bit. If they can't prove it now, do i just leave it and see what happens?Comment
-
Re: lowell
You must write to them recorded delivery pointing out that the alleged debt is Statute Barred by virtue of tS 5he Limitation Act 1980. Here is a letter you can use .
Dear Cretins
Re: Statute Barred Account ref ......
You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself. I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".
I would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period". The last acknowledgement to this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.
The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred could amount to harassment". I await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,Comment
-
Re: lowell
Oh, Lowells are stupid and desperate enough to try for a CCJ or a Statutory Demand even if a debt is statute-barred. Hopefully, it won't come to that, but just in case it does, Celestine has an impressive track record in giving Lowells a hammering, in the legal sense, and has done so on a number of occasions.Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.Comment
-
Re: lowell
Is this the same account you were referring to on this other thread? http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ht=#post378632
If the default has already dropped off, then it would be SBd, as defaults are not recorded till a few months after the first missed contractual payment. If they were to issue court papers, SBd is an absolute defence. Lowell are the lowest of the lowlifes and seem to make a habit of using every dirty trick in the book, inventing phantom payments being one of their favourites.Originally posted by mur1982 View Post
If you were to enter a SBd defence, it would be up to THEM to prove payments were made, as well as showing how they were made.Originally posted by mur1982 View Post
Comment
-
Re: lowell
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Comment
-
Re: lowell
Just getting it sent recorded for proofComment
-
Re: lowell
Being stupid is neither unlawful or illegal. Inventing phantom payments to try and extract money from someone for a debt the law clearly says you cannot enforce is unlawful and illegal. Sooner rather than later I can see the management of Lowells being invited in for a "meaningful discussion" about some of their more questionable practices.Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.Comment
-
Re: lowell
Originally posted by bluebottle View Post
They have been at this con game for years and no-one in authority bothers about them.Comment
-
Re: lowell
'DEAR CRETINS''
CLASSIC
msl:
Comment
-
Re: lowell
I respect your advice Bluebottle but have to say you are the most optimistic person on LB thinking that Lowells will be brought to task is about as likely as Cameron resigning until his 5 years are up.
There must be someone or many in authority who are protecting Lowell and all the other rogue DCAs together with the bailiffs operating under their own rules with blatant disregard for the law civil or criminal.
A change is long overdue this we all agree on but when is the big question and who is going to do it?Comment
-
Re: lowell
Thanks for that border. I sent something similar and received a letter back stating that 2 payments have been made on the account both for £20 on 12th & 15th july 2010, I know i did not make these payments and they have already told me they were returned and were paid in error, i have asked for any proof and i am yet to receive any. What should i do, send a copy of that letter you attached?Comment
-
Re: lowell
Yes that was my original post thank you for the adviceComment
Comment